BACKGROUND: : Due to ongoing organ donor shortage, an increasing number of adult live-donor liver transplants (LDLT) are being performed. The aims of this study were to compare the incidence of ACR between recipients of live- and deceased-donor liver transplants, and to note any differences in ACR among related and unrelated living-donor recipients. METHODS: : Sixty-four adults undergoing LDLT between 1998-2001 were closely matched with a deceased recipient. Statistical comparisons in ACR between the live- and deceased-donor groups were based on the differences between the ACR rates of each LDLT patient and the corresponding matched deceased recipient. Analyses were performed separately for pairs in which the living donor was not related to the recipient, was a nonsibling relative, or was a sibling. RESULTS: : Live- and deceased-donor recipients underwent a similar number of liver biopsies. In all, 16/50 (32%) of the biopsied LDLT patients had ACR compared to 36/49 (73%) of the deceased-donor recipients. ACR rates of living donors and their deceased-donor matches did not differ significantly for the unrelated living donors, but did differ for the nonsibling related (P=0.03) and the sibling LDLT (P=0.03). The results were similar when comparing rates of high-degree ACR for unrelated, nonsibling related, and sibling pairs. High-degree ACR differences in the sibling LDLT group were significantly greater than in the nonsibling group (P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: : Rates of ACR and high-degree ACR are decreased in living-related liver transplant recipients. This difference is likely genetically related as ACR rates are lower in recipient-donor pairs of increasing genetic similarity.
BACKGROUND: : Due to ongoing organ donor shortage, an increasing number of adult live-donor liver transplants (LDLT) are being performed. The aims of this study were to compare the incidence of ACR between recipients of live- and deceased-donor liver transplants, and to note any differences in ACR among related and unrelated living-donor recipients. METHODS: : Sixty-four adults undergoing LDLT between 1998-2001 were closely matched with a deceased recipient. Statistical comparisons in ACR between the live- and deceased-donor groups were based on the differences between the ACR rates of each LDLT patient and the corresponding matched deceased recipient. Analyses were performed separately for pairs in which the living donor was not related to the recipient, was a nonsibling relative, or was a sibling. RESULTS: : Live- and deceased-donor recipients underwent a similar number of liver biopsies. In all, 16/50 (32%) of the biopsied LDLT patients had ACR compared to 36/49 (73%) of the deceased-donor recipients. ACR rates of living donors and their deceased-donor matches did not differ significantly for the unrelated living donors, but did differ for the nonsibling related (P=0.03) and the sibling LDLT (P=0.03). The results were similar when comparing rates of high-degree ACR for unrelated, nonsibling related, and sibling pairs. High-degree ACR differences in the sibling LDLT group were significantly greater than in the nonsibling group (P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: : Rates of ACR and high-degree ACR are decreased in living-related liver transplant recipients. This difference is likely genetically related as ACR rates are lower in recipient-donor pairs of increasing genetic similarity.
Authors: A Shaked; R M Ghobrial; R M Merion; T H Shearon; J C Emond; J H Fair; R A Fisher; L M Kulik; T L Pruett; N A Terrault Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Chuan Li; Kai Mi; Tian fu Wen; Lu nan Yan; Bo Li; Jia ying Yang; Ming qing Xu; Wen tao Wang; Yong gang Wei Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mohit Kehar; Rulan S Parekh; Jennifer Stunguris; Maria De Angelis; Krista Van Roestel; Anand Ghanekar; Mark Cattral; Annie Fecteau; Simon Ling; Binita M Kamath; Nicola Jones; Yaron Avitzur; David Grant; Vicky Lee Ng Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2019-02-27